Rare & Impressive ‘Early Period’ House (ca 1700) offered For Sale in Gloucester, MA (12 pics)

Even among historic house lovers, I am probably one of the few crazies who would actually love to live in a rustic 17th- or early 18th-century home.  An old “New Englander” would be especially nice, with creaky wide-board floors, exposed beams, and wood-paneled walls.  I can picture myself enjoying Thanksgiving dinner with my family, gathered around a large harvest table while a fire roars in the large stone fireplace.  And stuff like that.

But very few of these early period homes ever hit the real estate market, so I had to feature this incredible example, since I can’t actually buy it.  The “Haskell House” in Gloucester, Massachusetts is a circa 1700 “Early Period” house and is listed on the National Register of Historic Places.  The house is being offered at $399,000 by Kristal Pooler & Associates.  Seems like a nice buy to me.   Located at 11 Lincoln Street, the 2.4 acre property sits on the edge of a tidal salt marsh.  Talk about recalling Puritan days!  It actually appears to be in a fairly rural area.  It’s not located within Gloucester proper, but instead it’s located between Gloucester & Essex village, near the Red Rocks Conservation Area.  It sits at the end of a winding country road — so it’s secluded, too!

Click Here for Index of 125+ articles here at Historic House Blog!!

But what really grabbed me was the interior.  Look at the pictures (below).  It’s incredible.  And it looks like there is a fair amount of original/early stuff there.

At the end of the photo gallery, there is a link to the Realtor’s website, where there are a bunch of cool documents about the history & architecture of the house, which I couldn’t even scratch the surface of in this post.  Check it out, if you’re so inclined.











For more information, visit the Realtor’s website here:


  1. by Kelly, on 02.27.12 @ 12:02 AM


    Wow, fabulous! I too love these Colonial period homes, with the huge fireplaces. Just the work that went into building them I have more appreciation for than any frilly Queen Anne.

  2. by Michael, on 02.27.12 @ 12:07 AM


    Yes, that’s exactly how I look at it. I appreciate the aesthetics & design of many Queen Anne Victorians, but as for personal tastes, I prefer simple & no-frills. I think that’s why I also like the Craftsman style.

  3. by Lisa Hassler, on 02.28.12 @ 4:21 PM


    What a gorgeous home! It is unusual to see a house of this age in such an amazing state of preservation. I’d move right in!

  4. by Michael, on 02.28.12 @ 4:34 PM


    I think it’s a rare treasure because of the original/early features, but also because of the setting. How many houses like this have stood the test of time, and also managed to survive in a non-urban area? It’s like it still sits in its 17th century context.

  5. by Sarah @ housecrazy, on 03.09.12 @ 4:32 PM


    It does seem rare that the house has been so untouched over the years. What amazing historical features! I would be playing those up big time! And the exterior and setting are enchanting!

  6. by Zachary, on 06.13.12 @ 9:25 PM


    Unfortunately the people that bought the house plan to remove the clapboard siding and windows, install reproduction diamond panes and install vertical siding and turn it into an income property. The Haskell House will be ruined.

  7. by Michael@HHB, on 06.13.12 @ 9:50 PM


    @Zachary….Wow….And hadn’t heard that it sold. So you’re sure that these changes are planned? What kind of income property are they planning? A B&B?

  8. by Zachary, on 06.14.12 @ 2:01 PM


    A student rental and I won’t give my source for this information but it’s pretty credible. Also demolition of the chimney from the attic up to replicate a chimney that may not have even been there.

  9. by Zachary, on 06.14.12 @ 2:03 PM


    The house may have been built in the mid 1600’s but it’s not historic preservation to try and make it look like that time frame. Vertical siding was never on these houses as far as I know. The framing would give that information away easily. The house is a colonial now, not Post-Medieval. It has looked like this since probably the mid 1700’s. It’s historic. They should leave it alone.

  10. by DR, on 07.21.12 @ 5:54 PM


    This is my ancestors home! Please don’t change it!!!!! I wish my whole family could have banded together & pitched in to buy this house. I’m not sure if any of us knew of it at the time or that it was for sale. I think it would wonderful to be partial owner of a piece of our family’s history!! O….please don’t do anything to change it!!! It’s a beautiful house with so much history.

  11. by Michael, on 07.21.12 @ 9:06 PM


    Wow DR! What a cool property to have in your lineage. I would *really* like to know what is happening with it — if anyone has any news, beyond Zachary’s information, I’d appreciate an update!

  12. by Betty Rood, on 07.22.12 @ 10:56 AM


    I too am a Haskell (of William) and am concerned about maintaining the integrity of this historical property. If indeed it is on the National Register of Historical Homes… what are the rules governing changes that can or cannot be done to keep it on the Register – it should be in compliance with Registery standards. I visited the property a week ago and was taken back in time to when my descendants first settled in this area. To have this property destroyed after having survived hundreds of years is unthinkable.

  13. by Michael@HHB, on 07.22.12 @ 11:08 AM


    Hi Betty,

    For the most part, recognition by the National Register of Historic Places does nothing to restrict or prevent owners from altering their property. Check out their official website here:

    In a nut shell, a National Register listing only recognizes the property as significant and worthy of preservation — in other words, it encourages preservation & qualifies it for possible tax credits, etc. But it doesn’t tell owners they can’t alter their homes. On the other hand, LOCAL historic districts, and sometimes state programs, often have true restrictions — insisting that homeowners get approval before altering the appearance of designated properties. It’s a common myth that the National recognition is more powerful than the local governance. It’s actually quite the opposite.

    So this is a long way of saying that there are probably few true restrictions on the current owners of the “Haskell House.”

  14. by William, on 11.23.13 @ 6:35 PM


    As I do appreciate the preservation of this house, I would find it difficult to live in. When one buys a house, you want to make it into a home. I would never do any “improvements” to this house but instead if I owned it, it’d probably become a museum of sorts. Houses like this are essential to learn what the past was like and we can’t tamper with that, even if we do find ourselves living in a house like this.

Comment RSS · TrackBack URI